The Princess Bride and the Three Act Film structure

The Hollywood three act film structure can be applied to The Princess Bride. This structure works well with this movie because it has a “happy ending” plot.

The first act, the introduction, is about 36 minutes long which is not far from the general 30 minute Hollywood introduction. During the introduction, the characters are introduced, the princess is kidnapped (which is the main conflict of the movie), and the Dread Pirate Roberts challenges the kidnappers. All of these are essential things to understand for the rest of the movie. The plot point of this act is when Princess Buttercup realizes that the Dread Pirate Roberts is her love, Wesley. This plot point sets of the possibility for conflict in the rest of the film.

The second act, the complication, occurs over approximately the next 30 minutes of the movie. During this part of the plot, Buttercup bargains her love for Wesley’s life, and the Prince’s corruption and plans to kill both Wesley and Buttercup are revealed. Complication also occurs with Inigo and Fezzik being split up. The major plot point of the complication is when the Prince, in a rage, sucks 50 years of life out of Wesley. This escalates the stakes because, at this point, it seems impossible for him to save Buttercup.

The resolution in the third act begins when Fezzik and Inigo take Wesley to miracle max to get him healed. From this point on, things start to be resolved. The plot point of the resolution and climax of the entire film occurs just minutes before the end when Wesley stops Buttercup from committing suicide, and they are able to be together.

Overall, this film fits this structure very well.

Episodic Sitcoms: Full House

One of the main characteristics of TV sitcoms is their episodic nature. After all, we would be quite perplexed if we were to watch a sitcom, only to find, it only had one episode. However, the presence of episodes is not necessarily what makes most sitcoms episodic. There are several characteristics that make most sitcoms (but certainly not all), fall under the episodic label. First off, most sitcoms end about where they begin. It is not often that we see a sitcom take great twists and turns to make the sitcom into something new. Although things may change during episodes, the overall order of the world is often the same as in the beginning. Generally they follow the same predictable plot development. A problem is developed and introduced, the characters try to solve the problem, the issue is resolves, and everything is back to normal. This resolution usually contains a lesson or statement within it that raises and answers a central question. Furthermore, there is not much character arc. The status of the characters at the end of an episode is not far from where it was at the beginning. All of these common sitcom characteristics allow us to label most sitcoms as episodic.

One of my favorite sitcoms that this can be applied to is Full House. Full House follows about the same general plot structure during each episode, and in the end, one or more characters learns a lesson. Many times these lessons raised questions about family life or domestic issues. Although the characters status, age, and view of the world changed slightly over the years that full house ran, for the most part, from one episode to the next, the characters were static. These characteristics clearly make Full House an episodic show.

Shot Progression in Sherlock Holmes

In filmmaking, different shots and shot progression are used in order to convey meaning. Each shot gives the audience a new bit of information that they process; so different shots obviously convey a different meaning. To demonstrate this, I would like to use the example of one of the first scenes of Sherlock Holmes where the audience is first introduced to Watson.

This series of shots uses the conventional long shot to medium shot to close up. It begins with giving a long shot of the street and then zooming in slightly to focus on the window through which we see Watson for the first time. At this point it is still a long shot. This shot does not necessarily show lots of detail about Watson, but that is not its purpose. Rather, it orientates the audience to who is speaking and his location. It is simply showing us “this is Watson, he is a character.”

Next, the frame changes to a Medium shot inside the house. We see Watson from across the room talking with his to-be father-in law. This shot gives us more information. Before, we just knew that Watson was the man talking in the window, but now the audience can start to see more information about him- his environment, posture, attitude, ect. Overall, it gets the audience to start thinking about him.

Next, when Watson moves into the hallway talking to the secretary, there is a close up shot. This gives detail about him. We know more about his facial features and expressions, his clothes, and his character. Since the close up is while he is dealing with an issue, we can see the subtle nuances of how he deals with aversion (calm, cool, collected, but aware of the need for action.)

Through this series of shots, the audience is able to comprehend Watson as a character more thoroughly. There are many other examples of the same shot progression throughout the film, but they all show the same conclusion: different shots can convey a different message.

(pictures of these shots coming soon once I learn how to take a screen shot on a mac)

Genres in Classical Hollywood

During the Age of Classical Hollywood, the immensely vertically integrated studio system used many ploys to achieve success. One of the most interesting and important of these was the use of genres within filmmaking. Genres were employed to give audiences specific conventions to expect during the film, therefore telling them their likelihood of enjoying the film. The genres were simplified categories for types of stories that audiences identified with.

This affected the types of films a studio made because they could stick to a systematic formula for each film. Each genre would follow basically the same pattern, but perhaps with slightly different circumstances and actors. However, different actors were not guaranteed. In fact many actors became associated with one specific genre (for example John Wayne and Westerns). Therefore, the genres produced affected the actors who were cast. This formula based type of movie production created a predictable relationship between filmmakers and audiences because audiences knew what to expect and filmmakers could be relatively sure of the audience’s reaction to it. When social or political sentiment tuned against a genre (like it did with the idolizing Gangster Genre), film companies would turn to a different genre, like, in this case, detective films. Genres further influenced film development when it came to hybrid genres. Filmakers could create highly sensational hits by mixing genres and therefore giving movies a sense of novelty. Furthermore, if one genre was popular, you could be sure that the studios would pump out more movies from that genre. Overall, the supply and demand of different genres determined what kinds of movies were made and watched.

One example how the genre system worked can be seen in the evolution from gangster films to detective films to hybrid films. Gangster films were very popular and the audiences had a very high demand for them. However, the effect of idolizing vicious criminals was called to question, so the industry shifted to the detective genre. From there, they shifted to hybrids of detective film and other genres. This entire genre evolution can be seen in conjunction with the star system and Humphrey Bogart’s career. He started out his career in gangster movies and then transitioned to the hard-boiled detective in detective films, and then to a hybrid of detective and romance in the Maltese Falcon. The elements of several genres can be seen in the embedded trailer from The Maltese Falcon.

All the Family Vs. Hannah Montana

The differences and similarities between “All in the Family” and “Hannah Montana” clearly show an evolution (or perhaps devolution) in Media through TV. These two shows are both family-based situational comedies made within decades of each other, but even that small difference in time period produced drastically different products. First off the family structure is different. The 60’s family is the traditional nuclear family with a mother, father, daughter, and son, whereas Hannah Montana has a broken family (without a mom). Another prime difference is the subject matter. “All in the family” deals with controversial subject matter that would have been brought up in normal families during the sixties. On the other hand, “Hannah Montana” deals with extraordinary circumstances that none of the normal population has to deal with, like the daughter being a pop star who goes to school undercover as a non-famous person. The entire attitude of the two shows is different. “Hannah Montana” is showing that famous people are just like normal people, where “All in the Family” shows the meaningfulness of a regular life.

Even though these two shows are drastically different they have many similarities. They both have fathers who mean well and want to protect their children from the perceived evils of society. Most of their scenes are also set in the home around the TV or eating area. The families are both close and actively involved in each others lives. Often the father figure will make a decision designed to help his children when it actually hurts them. They also use situations that the audience can relate to in order to increase the humor. Even though our lives do not mirror any of the characters, the familiarity of dilemmas they face do give us a connection with their experiences. For example, we may not be a pop star, but we have all been in an awkward situation on a date.

The issues presented in Hannah Montana are much less controversial than those presented in “All in the Family.” For example, “All in the Family” brought hot button issues on camera like the acceptance of homosexuality in society whereas Hannah Montana might deal with problems encountered while throwing a party. The issues encountered in “Hannah Montana do not provoke thought, whereas the ones in “All in the Family” were designed to make the audience think about their life. This presence of serious issues in “All in the Family” versus trivial issues in Hannah Montana shows a different goal of the producers of these two shows.